1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 16

[ Page 11017 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like all members of the House to join in a tribute to the Kamloops Blazers, who have won the Memorial Cup for the second time in three years. As a matter of fact, in the last ten years they have won the western league four times and have never had a losing season. This year 11 of the players were from British Columbia, ten were from Alberta and one was from the north -- the Yukon. I want you to know that we're looking forward to hosting the Memorial Cup in Kamloops next year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to introduce to the House a friend and supporter, Dorothy Kemp, from 108 Mile in Cariboo South. She's here visiting relatives and hopes someday maybe even to retire here.

N. Lortie: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today 75 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary, from -- you might have guessed it -- the great constituency of Delta North. They are led by two brave individuals, Mr. Baines and Mr. Nixon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee: His Excellency Marijan Majcen, Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia is accompanied by his wife, Marija Majcen. Both are seated on the east side of the members' gallery. Please extend them both a warm British Columbia welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: As all members know, we all run community constituency offices. Without the help and advice, many times, of the volunteers in those offices, we could not serve our constituents as well as we do. Today in the galleries are two who volunteer in my community office, Beth Loring and Kathleen McBride. They're accompanied by my constituency assistant, Lynn Osborne. Would the House please make them all welcome.

F. Jackson: I would like to add to what the Premier had to say about some of my favourite people. Since last September my wife and I have been in our seats in the Riverside Coliseum watching hockey performances which have proved to be second to none. Right from the beginning of the season -- Deuling, Tucker, entertainment, unbelievable Passmore; Bob Maudie put in the finishing touches on Sunday -- it has been great to watch.

I would like to take this opportunity for myself, my wife and the 5,000 regular fans of Kamloops to tell Colin Day, Bob Brown, Hazer and all the Blazers: thanks very much for entertaining us; thanks for being such good ambassadors for the city of Kamloops and the province of British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. E. Cull: Bill 44 proposes amendments to the Company Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Public Sector Employers Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Some of the proposed amendments are housekeeping or administrative measures designed to clarify and modernize the legislation; others offer more substantive amendments and are proposed for the taxation statutes to maintain equity and to assist in the collection of taxes due to the Crown.

The significant amendments are to the Financial Administration Act to update and clarify the investment provisions under the act and to fulfil the government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the 1993 Seaton commission report on issues of alleged conflict of interest. Amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act will clarify the organization of employers' associations as societies under the Society Act.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT

M. de Jong: The opposition has come into possession of a secret poll conducted by the Minister of Finance, presumably to try to decide financial policy. In that poll 88 percent of the people asked said that they were fed up with ongoing government waste. Another 88 percent said it's time the government brought spending under control.

This minister went on to spend over a million dollars in a public relations blitz to sell her budget. Could the minister indicate whether she was confused by the message sent to her by those people, or whether she simply decided to ignore the 88 percent of British Columbians who are pleading for an end to government waste?

Hon. E. Cull: I welcome this question from the member. On the contrary, this government isn't confused about what the people in this province want. We know that what they wanted to see was their deficit reduced by 60 percent, as it has been in the last few years. We know that what they wanted to see was the rate of growth of spending cut by three-quarters, as it has been over the last three budgets. We know that they wanted to see their taxes frozen, as they have been now for three years.

Clearly we have been listening to the public. We have increased jobs, we have cut taxes, we've frozen taxes, and the deficit is down again this year by another $400 million.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The minister obviously didn't review the results too closely, or she'd know that 72 percent of the people took exactly a contrary view to the issue of debt and deficit control.

One of the question does state that despite budget cuts, the provincial government was able to increase the funding for essential services like schools and hospitals.

That was the

preamble to the question, hon. Speaker. My question for the minister, quite simply, is: has her government now followed the advice that this Liberal opposition has given and made education an essential service, as suggested in the question?

[ Page 11018 ]

Hon. E. Cull: No. What we certainly haven't done is follow the advice of this opposition, which has been to cut spending in all areas of essential services to people in this province. On the contrary, what we have done while reducing the growth of spending is provide some of the highest increases in spending to health and education, because that's what the people in the province told us was important. They said: "Go after the waste and go after the duplication, but don't cut health and education spending." Unfortunately, that's what these people have been asking for over the last two years.

[2:15]

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

M. de Jong: One of the questions in that poll reads as follows: "Overall, what sort of impression do you have of the Premier, the Finance minister and the House Leader?" We had no idea the minister was so interested. We'd be happy to give her our impression free of charge. But the question is: how much taxpayers' money did the minister spend to find out how British Columbians feel about her? Does she think that finding out how people feel about her is an appropriate expenditure of public moneys?

Hon. E. Cull: This government has conducted one of the most comprehensive prebudget consultations ever, so that we could talk to people in the province about what they wanted to see in the provincial budget. They told us that they wanted to see more jobs, they wanted to see the deficit cut, and they wanted to see their taxes frozen -- and that's exactly what we have delivered.

B.C. ENERGY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Richard Gathercole will be eligible for severance in December 1994 when the B.C. Energy Council is axed. Could the minister please tell this House what ridiculous severance package Dick Gathercole will receive for his two years' work on this golden five-year NDP contract?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure that I heard the member correctly. Did he say "what ridiculous severance package"? Is that an assumption that the member is making?

Yes, Mr. Gathercole had an appointment for five years. We have not yet discussed with him what he wants to do. When his appointment is finished....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Please proceed.

Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously he will have some choices as to a severance package when he has finished his task in November of this year. Between now and November, I have no doubt that we will have some discussions with Mr. Gathercole about his options and preferences.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I didn't realize that it was up to his choice and not the choice of this government, who are the custodians of the British Columbia taxpayers' pockets.

If Mr. Gathercole completes his five-year term, if he's allowed to hang around for that long, would the minister please advise us of the current value of his pension rights then?

Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Gathercole, as the chair of the Energy Council, will have completed his task by December of this year. At that time, of course, we will be discussing with Mr. Gathercole, as we would discuss with any other employee of the government who has had an appointment, what he will do next. He has some choices.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll make up the list of all the things that Mr. Gathercole could do at no cost to the British Columbia taxpayers.

Could the Minister of Energy please advise this House and the taxpayers of British Columbia what will be the total cost of the closing down of the B.C. Energy Council in the form of severance payments?

Hon. A. Edwards: I intend to discuss any severance package that might be offered to Mr. Gathercole with Mr. Gathercole before I discuss it with anyone else. Mr. Gathercole has not completed his task. We've not discussed at all what his choices would be under the limited choices that are available.

PROTECTION OF B.C. INTERESTS IN EVENT OF QUEBEC SEPARATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Last week at the Western Premiers' Conference, the Premier repeated his threat to Quebec should they choose to separate. Can the Premier...?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: He obviously has some fans in the back corner.

Would the Premier tell us if this government has a position for British Columbia should Quebec decide to leave Confederation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the leader of the Reform Party would join with every member of this House in wanting to see this country stay united, and that's exactly what I want to see. This is the greatest country in the world. British Columbians want to see Canada stay together. They don't want to hear some of the separatist ideologues who have come to British Columbia and talked a pile of nonsense about what would happen in Quebec. I made it very clear that the people of Quebec understand that we're living in the greatest country in the world. We in British Columbia, like the people of Quebec, want to keep this country united.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The people of Quebec must be doubly baffled. They hear the Premier threatening to be their worst enemy, after having made an unconditional surrender to them in the Charlottetown accord. He gave them everything they wanted in Charlottetown, then he comes out and threatens to be their worst enemy. Can the Premier tell us if British Columbia has a position that would protect the economic interests of British Columbia should the people of Quebec decide that they want to separate from Canada?

[ Page 11019 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I admit that I get confused as to what position the leader of the Reform Party -- who used to be part of the Social Credit Party -- is going to take from one day to the next. He voted for the Charlottetown accord. He voted that we should....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Harcourt: That was when he was a Socred. It may be slightly different now, as this week he is a member of the Reform Party. It's hard to keep up.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that one policy I am sure every member of this Legislature can agree with is that we want Quebec to stay in Confederation. We want to see this country united, prosperous and strong. That's what we're going to be working for in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Your final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: It's sad to see a Premier who doesn't know the difference between Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Unfortunately, I was on this side of the House when Charlottetown was being discussed. But you can stand corrected, Mr. Premier. The important thing is that we need a Premier who is willing to stand up for Canada and talk about keeping this country together, but in the event of separation, to be interested in the interests of British Columbia. What plans has the Premier put forward on behalf of the people of British Columbia in the unfortunate event of separation? What plans has the Premier made?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I laid it out very clearly last week -- that's to keep this country united. That's the plan of this government: for this to be the most prosperous part of Canada, with the number one economy in North America; the part of Canada that people look to with some hope, where 40,000 to 50,000 other Canadians move to every year to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that I discussed with the other Premiers at the Western Premiers' Conference last week. We agreed that the opportunities were here, at Canada's front door onto the Asia Pacific.

Making sure that British Columbia stays the most prosperous part of not just Canada but of North America is what is going to keep this country united.

Aside from the question being hypothetical and about a future situation, I'm prepared to say that the people of British Columbia know there is much, much more that can be done within Canada than breaking it up.

POLICY ON AWARDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Given the comments of some of my colleagues, which show that the poll done in preparation for this year's budget said that 88 percent of the people of this province say the government should be ferreting out waste wherever possible, can the minister tell us where he got his idea of not accepting low bids anymore for government contracts and referring them only to qualified firms? Can the minister tell us what in his mind is a qualified firm? Is it a union firm? Can he tell those firms how much they have to contribute to the NDP in order to qualify?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to first deal with the

preamble, because the people of British Columbia did say that they want to cut waste, they want the deficit down, they want us to maintain our credit and they want jobs up -- and jobs are up in British Columbia. Unlike the Liberal Party, who stand up in this House and vote against school construction, vote against capital spending and vote against the B.C. 21 initiative, which is laying the foundation for future growth.... That's what the poll shows: people in British Columbia support the initiatives taken by this

administration, this Finance minister and this government to build the province.

The question of how we tender....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: What we're doing with respect to tendering is making sure that we get more value for public money. It means that when we're spending a billion dollars of public money on the construction of public assets such as schools, hospitals, court houses and justice facilities -- all of which the opposition opposed -- we want other goals accomplished at the same time. We want more apprentices working on public construction in British Columbia this year than in any time in history.

And that means, when we do our tender documents, that yes, we want low bids, but we also want more apprentices, more women and more aboriginal people working on public construction than at any time before. Those are the objectives we're putting into our tender documents now.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is that if this minister wanted to get more value for his money he'd get rid of his fair-wage policy and his fair-wage legislation, which that minister himself said would result in one, two or several schools not being built in this province. It's that minister who's voting against schools; it's that minister who's making poor choices on behalf of taxpayers.

Can the minister advise us today that whether or not a company is certified or is part of a trade union will not be one of the reasons this government uses to qualify bidders?

Hon. G. Clark: It makes no difference whether they're union or non-union. What we want is full value for public dollars spent. We've engaged in a consultation process with the B.C. Construction Association, the ICBA, union and non-union firms, trade unions and representatives of non-union firms. We want to make sure, when we're making these substantial investments in the future of the province, that we have more apprentices, more women and more aboriginal people working than ever before in history.

I'm sorry to see the opposition stand in the House and oppose those kinds of actions that put people and young people to work in British Columbia, because that's the objective of this administration.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Ministerial Statement

ABORIGINAL AWARENESS WEEK

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a privilege to announce today that the week of May 23 to 27 has been proclaimed Aboriginal

[ Page 11020 ]

Awareness Week in British Columbia. This government is working hard to build new relationships with aboriginal people throughout the province. We are honouring a commitment that was made to first nations to set right longstanding injustices and to address issues of fundamental importance to aboriginal people. By moving forward the negotiation of fair and honourable treaties with first nations, we are striving to build a stronger, more just and prosperous British Columbia for all citizens. We recognize the culture of aboriginal people and acknowledge their successes and contributions to the province.

I wish to emphasize the importance we attach to including all British Columbians in building new relationships with aboriginal people.

In 1993, in conjunction with the International Year for the World's Indigenous People, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs declared May 24 to 28 Aboriginal Awareness Week. Aboriginal Awareness Week 1994 will provide an opportunity for British Columbians to become more aware of aboriginal people and to learn more about aboriginal people's heritage, languages and cultures. It is only through this awareness and knowledge that we can come closer to understanding and respecting one another.

A. Warnke: The official opposition welcomes this initiative by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs because it is both timely and essential. We need to address longstanding injustices. We need to settle outstanding grievances. We need treaties that are fair, honourable and just, especially at a time when aboriginal peoples throughout the province are seeking inclusion in Canada and Canadian society and can contribute so much to the Canadian cultural fabric.

In that context it is therefore necessary for British Columbians to appreciate the diverse, rich and complex cultures that exist in the aboriginal communities throughout the province. We want to encourage all British Columbians to learn, appreciate and respect this, and this is a great opportunity to do so.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and acknowledge Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. The rich diversity of language, culture and heritage that exists in British Columbia is a true treasure. It is something that has had the attention of a lot of people over the last few years, particularly aboriginal people, with a growing awareness of the importance particularly of language but also of culture to the value, benefit and

well-being of the community. It really is something that deserves a great deal of attention and support from government and

non-aboriginal British Columbians. But clearly, it must be led by aboriginal people, and that's the case here in this province. It is worthy of acknowledgment and I believe it is still not truly well understood in our society. I don't think enough attention is being focused in our school system on our aboriginal heritage. We spend far too much time studying European history and not enough studying our own Canadian history, and we should move in that direction. I would certainly like to join with the minister, the official opposition and the government in acknowledging Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: It is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the Alliance to welcome the introduction of an Aboriginal Awareness Week. Those who have heard my comments and the comments of my colleagues before will know that we believe that the question of the future of the aboriginal people in British Columbia and how they will govern themselves is a matter of critical importance to all British Columbians.

To point out an irony in the question of Aboriginal Awareness Week, we notice that not only are British Columbians generally not aware of the language, culture, and evolution of aboriginal people, they are decidedly ignorant of the process that is now underway to implement a new order of government in this province that will allow for the self-governance of the aboriginal people. It is not enough that we simply be aware in a paternalistic or colonial style of the aboriginal people of this country. It is important that all British Columbians -- not just members of this government -- be engaged in the ongoing discussions with respect to the new form of governance for aboriginal people.

We are entering a new economic paradigm in this nation and, I believe, a new social paradigm also. It is time that we recognized that equality among people must be paramount. We must no longer start to draw distinctions and divisions on the basis of language, religion or culture. What we must start to recognize is that the differences, while they can be embraced, supported and celebrated, must allow us to recognize that we can all be equal. Equality is the key in this awareness. It is time that we started to look toward equality among all British Columbians and all Canadians.

It is time that this government introduced -- and I think it is timely that they would do so in this week -- discussion and ongoing dialogue of all British Columbians with respect to the process of self-governance that is now underway, how that is going to create interaction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in a future society in British Columbia and how that will provide equality among all people and a brighter future for all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Hon. J. MacPhail tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Social Services.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First let me advise all members of the House that the House will sit tomorrow. For the business today I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, I call the Ministry of Social Services. In Committee B, I call the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM

(continued)

On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479.

W. Hurd: I have a series of questions for the minister with respect to the costs of implementing the Forests Practices Code. The minister will be aware that his ministry conducted and paid for a review of the potential benefits and costs associated with the proposed rules for forest practices. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the committee whether his ministry will continue to have the primary role in assessing the costs and benefits of the code or whether that

[ Page 11021 ]

responsibility will be shifted in any way to the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. M. Sihota: The studies that were conducted in the past were conducted jointly by Forests and Environment, if I'm not mistaken -- I'm functioning from memory here. It would seem to me that the work would be done jointly by both ministries.

W. Hurd: I refer specifically to the study that was developed by Meyer Resources, which was released by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, but if there's involvement by the Ministry of Forests we accept that.

The minister will be aware that there is a disparity in terms of the costs of implementation. This particular study came up with a figure of somewhere in the vicinity of $69 million for the costs of implementation. During a press conference last week the minister indicated that the cost could be around $200 million. Can the minister tell us exactly what will be done in the current fiscal year to pin down those costs of implementation? Does he accept the figure of $69 million in this consultant's study, or is the figure closer to $200 million or perhaps more?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, at that press conference I believe the Minister of Forests said $200 million. I can't remember exactly in what context it was said. There were, as you know, a number of reports done -- three of them, I believe -- which put different cost estimates to the Forest Practices Code work. I know you know that, because you had that information. With regard to this year, yes, we will be doing more work through consultants to evaluate the costs as the code is put into place. There's about $20,000 allocated in our budget and some -- I don't know how much -- in the Ministry of Forests' budget to do that work.

W. Hurd: I'm a little surprised that at this point we don't have a more accurate assessment of the costs of the code or an indication from the minister that a fixed cost may or may not be available this fiscal year. Clearly the study that was commissioned by the Ministry of Environment came in with an exceedingly low figure of some $69 million. The minister will be aware of industry submissions in the range of a billion dollars.

Can the minister at least indicate to the committee that we will have a reasonably accurate figure for the costs of implementation during the coming fiscal year so we don't have this considerable range of $69 million to $1 billion? Will we have a more accurate figure at any point in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm surprised that the hon. member would say that the ministry does not have something more definitive pinned down. The hon. member knows full well, being the forestry critic for his party, that the standards have not yet been released. A lot of people want to see those standards. Those standards are, of course, a necessary precondition to having a definitive number put down. But as I said earlier on, we will do that work. One of the studies the member alludes to said that it would actually be a break-even situation in, I believe, five years.

W. Hurd: I was particularly interested in the consultant's report on the number of logging roads in the province which will have to be reclaimed from their current state, and the responsibility that the Ministry of Forests will have to deal with that problem. Can the minister tell us exactly what the Ministry of Environment's involvement will be during the coming year in dealing with this huge environmental problem? The minister will well know that the ministry and the government itself are responsible for many of the abandoned logging roads that pose a serious erosion and environmental problem.

I wonder if the minister could indicate what responsibility his ministry will have in identifying the most serious cases of potential erosion and soil damage from these logging roads, and exactly what role his ministry will play in dealing with that during the coming year.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, we've already identified through a first cut the roads that are in question. So we've already done that work. We will have done work in that regard jointly with Forests. Also, we are looking very much at the streams, and they are looking very much at the roads.

[2:45]

F. Gingell: With the Fraser River Festival and the concurrent national and international Environment Days coming up next week, can the minister give the assurance that is sought by the people of Delta that his ministry will ensure for the long term the important and diverse wildlife and agricultural values of this environmentally sensitive and important community?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if you're talking about Delta, about certain components of Delta or about the entire Fraser Valley. Perhaps you could be a little clearer.

F. Gingell: At just this time last year, the Premier and the then Minister of Environment went to Delta and gave out some of the reports that had been completed at that time. Those reports clearly showed what all of us in Delta know: that it's an important place for wildlife, it's an important place for Burns Bog -- a unique area -- and it's an important place for agriculture.

I was reviewing our earlier discussion in the estimates debate, and I didn't have the feeling that everything is moving along -- the commitments made in July 1993. I noted your commitment, which I thank you for, that all of the new leases for farmers on agricultural lands will no longer have those

short-term cancellation clauses. What I'm looking for now is a commitment from your ministry that you recognize how unique this area is and that it is really in the forefront of your concerns.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we do recognize that, and I, on a personal basis, certainly recognize the uniqueness of the area. I know that I've received many letters, as well as representations, from the citizens of Delta -- including yourself and the member for Delta North -- reminding me of the importance of the area.

You asked me whether or not it's at the forefront of my mind. To be candid with you, a lot of issues are at the forefront of my mind. I don't think I can say that at any given time one issue dominates over another. I can tell you that I am constantly kept abreast of the work we're doing in Delta. I can also tell you that on a personal basis I sometimes feel frustrated that we aren't moving a bit faster on some of the issues that relate to Delta. There are a host of issues with regard to that community, and many are competing with one another. It's working its way through the system.

On my own initiative -- if this means anything -- I have from time to time inquired of staff as to issues relating to Delta generally. I mean more than just Enviro Desorption; I mean the range of issues you referred to. I'm obviously very cognizant of the statements made by the former Minister of

[ Page 11022 ]

Environment and the Premier. I think that should give you the flavour of where we're at. They aren't being put off. I would hope that we can come forward with some significant announcements relating to Delta during the course of this fiscal year. I think it's more than a hope; if I can amplify a bit more on that, the probabilities are that we will be able to do that. That's my read of the situation as of the last briefing I had, which was probably about six weeks ago.

F. Gingell: One last point. There is a Delta wildlife trust. At the moment I can't think of the exact name for it. It was set up by the agricultural community, in cooperation with the wildlife and environmental communities. They are very hopeful that some of the environmental funds that will become available through the construction of the third runway at Vancouver International Airport might be used to acquire some important wildlife land in Delta. I wonder if your ministry is aware of this new trust. Mr.

Minister, could you ask your officials if there is any way your ministry may be able to help them accomplish some of their worthwhile goals, such as the acquisition and setting-aside of more wildlife lands? That will not only enhance wildlife but will hopefully protect some farmers' lands.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your question, hon. member. I would certainly encourage them to apply for the funds available under the airport expansion work. I would also encourage them to apply to the ministry, through the habitat conservation fund, for those purposes. I appreciate that in areas adjacent to urban corridors, such as Delta, and given the need for wildlife to have the spaces that currently exist in Delta, these lands should be considered for either of those two funds.

R. Neufeld: I have a few brief questions for the minister directly relating to my constituency of Peace River North. The first one involves the Minister of Agriculture also, but it ultimately comes down to the Ministry of Environment. It's the lease program in effect in the north. There's an agricultural program in an area just out of Hudson's Hope. A constituent of mine went in there and applied for some land in 1990, completed all the things that had to be done to get title to his land, and was looking forward to getting title to two more sections so he could make it a viable agricultural operation, specifically for cattle.

In the meantime, from when he first started work on the first

section of land that he applied for, something changed. The land had been monumented and surveyed and was part of this agricultural land development. It had been serviced by B.C. Hydro at a cost to government and the taxpayers, and all the surveying had been completed. This gentleman finished his work and applied for two more sections. He received notice from Lands that they had been placed in a map reserve in the name of B.C. Environment for fish and wildlife management purposes and were not available for agriculture.

I understand about fish and wildlife; I'm not saying we shouldn't be looking after these things. In the letter the constituent sent to me, he's very cognizant of that also. He does not allow hunting on his lands and does not clear them from border to border. But he's rather disturbed, and understandably so, that something happened between 1990 and now so that he cannot expand his farm. The other twist to it is that the Ministry of Lands may look favourably at letting out

half-sections of this land to hobby farmers. To this gentleman, it doesn't quite make sense. I wonder if the minister could explain to me a bit about what's happened in this program and why we would get to this point with this gentleman.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wonder if the hon. member could let me know this: does he have a letter in his possession from our ministry that says that we would make it available for hobby farms? Am I correct in that understanding? I see the member shaking his head indicating no. I'm wondering if he could amplify on that part of it. I take it he has a letter from a constituent who says that he's been told that it might be available for hobby farm purposes. Am I correct in that assumption? I see the hon. member saying yes.

Well, we don't normally do that, so that doesn't quite make sense. It would seem to me that somewhere between 1990 and 1992, or whatever, the ministry obviously identified these lands as being required for fish and wildlife purposes, and hence the denial of your constituent's opportunity to expand. That seems the best generic answer I can give you at this time.

But I should also say this. If you give me the particulars of that case today, I've got staff here, and we'll be able to give you the appropriate background so that you can advise your constituent of the reasons from the ministry's point of view. Perhaps when we're finished, or whenever someone else speaks during the course of the estimates, the hon. member could give me that information, and we'll start looking into it for him.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I will provide that so we can get an answer for the gentleman.

Another issue in my constituency, of course, deals with the expansion of the oil and gas industry this past year and the difficulties that we have experienced, specifically on referrals. At one time, a proponent would take a specified form to different ministries for approval so they could go ahead with well access and get on with drilling their well. It's not just moving a rig in; it's doing the roadwork and all the things that are necessary. At one time, the referral took a few days; it went to the length of a week. With the increased activity last year, some well authorities were held up in excess of 30 days.

I understand that this is required in some sensitive areas, and the industry understands that. But it seems as though, because we have a shortage of staff.... One person -- actually one habitat technician -- to look after the area from the Sikanni north and one to look after the area from the Sikanni south was not sufficient to meet the demand of what was happening.

The minister is aware that a time element is involved in the oil and gas industry, specifically in the north, where most of it has to be done in the wintertime. We have companies waiting in a 90-to-100-day window to complete all their work -- and waiting for up to 30 days or more of that to get the authority to go ahead. That holdup came directly from within the Environment ministry. The biggest issue was that there weren't enough people to do the work.

Is there not some way -- for that short period of time when we have to accommodate those industries -- that we could bring in a habitat technician from another part of British Columbia to help with those issues, so that we can proceed with those well applications and the companies can get on with their work? It's better for the industry; it's better for government; it's better for the people involved; actually, it's better for everyone involved. On top of it all, it means more revenue for the government, so the minister should look favourably at that. I appreciate that when I brought it to his attention last year, it was acted on fairly quickly.

[3:00]

[ Page 11023 ]

I would think those would be normal courses of action within the Ministry of Environment. Those people are aware. They've worked there for a long time. They know what has to happen. They should have been looking forward to this. This wasn't something that was sprung on them all of a sudden. They knew a year ahead of time that this was going to happen and that the activity was going to pick up quite a bit. Is there some plan in place now, so we don't go through the same procedure next November that we went through last November?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there is a new procedure with mines. First of all, we try to expedite these matters. Second, in December we actually put three more staff in that area to deal with the problem that you allude to. Third, let me also make it clear -- because your constituents and others should know -- that this is a significant wilderness and wildlife area, and the Muskwa is certainly a concern for the ministry. Therefore we will be dealing with those issues with some sensitivity, which will inevitably result in some delay.

Having said that, we added more staff. We are working with the Mines ministry to develop a longer-term plan to make the process more expeditious. We recognize that problem as well.

R. Neufeld: I was under the impression last fall that the staff who had been added were temporary. Am I to now understand that the three people added to that department in Fort St. John last December are now permanent staff?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, those people are not permanent; they are temporary. But in the future we will be assigning more staff up there, and those staff will be permanent.

R. Neufeld: Further to that, when can we expect those people who are going to be permanent? So I know, are we talking about later on this summer or in the fall?

Hon. M. Sihota: You shouldn't push your luck, you know. You've really gotten a fair bit out of me. You know that we've got three temporary and have moved to have more put up there on a permanent basis. I would have thought that would have been enough for you to go back to your riding and give yourself all sorts of credit in your local newspaper. But if that's not enough, you can tell them you demanded that something be done by the fall, and I think you'll be within safe parameters.

I believe that one of your colleagues asked a question about Tweedsmuir. I've asked some staff to be available here in a few minutes on the Tweedsmuir issue; we can deal with that about 15 or 20 minutes from now.

R. Neufeld: I do thank the minister for those promises of some more staff. I want to remind him that his government's stated deficit last year was reduced by $169 million directly from natural gas and oil lease sales in the area of Peace River North and Peace River South. So I guess we are contributing a fair amount. It would certainly be nice to see that continue.

I have another few questions that have to do with seismic -- and it may be more of a suggestion, or some help. Presently what happens in seismic is that when they do shotholes, they're drilled about 60 feet deep. They're packed with dynamite. Then, through some system of lines, the dynamite is set off, and reverberations are recorded in a recording machine to give you the shape of the land down below. The shotholes are drilled just about anywhere -- across a farmer's field or through ditches, as the land becomes used for more purposes.

You can actually have water drainage -- surface drainage -- into those holes. At the present time, after the shot goes off we just stick all the drillings back in the hole. It doesn't seal it off. Every few hundred feet you have a 60-foot hole -- about a six-inch, four-inch or three-inch bore; it depends on the company -- where you could have a lot of runoff, especially in ditches. So if you have a truck with a load of acid on it upset, it gets into those. In the springtime, the stuff that's not cleaned up melts and runs down a few miles or something, and it goes down those bore holes.

A type of material called bentonite, a clay soil that actually expands when it gets wet, could be put down the hole. It's actually required in Alberta now, but in British Columbia we don't do it. Before they shoot it, if they put the bentonite down the hole and fill it right up, then as it gets wet it will expand and seal it off. That was actually suggested to me by a

water-well drilling company in Fort St. John that's been witnessing some difficulties with wells they've drilled -- with what comes up in the water. So it would be helpful, I'm sure, to the seismic industry, and would fall under the Ministry of Environment.

I'll just ask, along with that.... The Guide-Outfitters' Association and the packers -- I don't know whether you dealt with that during estimates; I wasn't here -- of course play a big

part in my constituency. I just wonder: have we reached any kind of agreement between the guide-outfitters and packers so that we are finally going to know who is responsible for what and what's going to happen? I know that this is not an easy issue to deal with. It's been on the books for a long time, and maybe the minister has some updated versions so that we can look forward to some agreements coming forward in order that these two organizations can work in some kind of harmony in our woods.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say that when you were talking to that individual who deals with wells and water from wells, I hope you told him that there would be no taxes on groundwater. I was just looking at the Peace River Block News for May 6, 1994, and it says right here that I've said that there will be no taxes on groundwater. It says it in a nice bold headline, so I'm sure you got the message when you read this on May 6.

I hope you carry that with you everywhere you go in order to give your constituents some comfort that we're on the right side of things, and that for some reason your party and your leader came up with some press release that accused me of tap-dancing -- or some silly thing like that -- on the issue. Could you please make sure that message gets out?

With regard to the clay seal, it strikes me that that's a good idea. We will discuss that with the Ministry of Energy as we develop regulations for that area. One of the benefits of having these estimates is that those kinds of ideas that come forward from constituents can be incorporated into public policy options.

On the packer-outfitter issue, it is certainly a very divisive one within that community. I had the privilege of going to the B.C. Wildlife Federation and speaking to them on the very morning that they had debated that issue. Having missed the debate -- thankfully -- but knowing that it was difficult for them, I can tell the hon. member that we have asked them to sit back and see if they can work at some kind of resolution. We are hoping that within that network they can arrive at a conclusion, and we are optimistic that we can have something in place by this fall. If they are still miles

[ Page 11024 ]

away that might be problematic, but that's basically where we are heading. I think they are making a genuine effort to resolve this issue. This organization is remarkable. It has played a very necessary role in assisting us in developing policy, and I'm sure it will be able to

stick-handle the issues appropriately and hand us the resolution by the fall.

R. Neufeld: I have asked ministers before you the same question, and we were always going to have it resolved. Right from the first estimates that I took

part in we were always going to deal with it. To date we still haven't, and that's awhile ago. I'm not picking sides, but guide-outfitters have a much better organization as a lobbying group than the packers do; they tend to be more individualistic and operate on their own. I'm sure the minister is cognizant of this problem and is going to try to deal with that.

I have another issue in my constituency that was going to be dealt with a number of years ago -- shortly after your government came in -- dealing with fishing in back-country lakes. A number of people operate fishing lodges on the Alaska Highway. One in particular brings an awful lot of fishermen from all over the world to fish in British Columbia, but is having some difficulty constructing fishing camps of any kind on some of the

back-country lakes. It's not because that certain individual wants to claim that lake for himself. Specifically, it would be nice to have a lodge or a fairly substantial tent camp so he can put his fishermen up in a little better style.

I've been told a number of times that we were going to deal with this issue. As I understand it, to date we still haven't dealt with the issue, unless.... The minister is nodding yes; maybe we have and I don't know about it. Maybe he can tell me when he expects that we can deal with this, so this gentleman can get on with building some fishing camps or whatever is required to build up his tourism business -- something that the province is trying its utmost to do. We see the province starting ferries from here to Seattle to encourage tourism around the Victoria area. I'm just wondering if we can see the same kind of effort in the north, so we can encourage more fishermen to come up there.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm hoping to adjourn estimates today around 5:30.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to know that it isn't because I want to get to the hockey game. In fact, I had tickets to the hockey game tonight, but I had to give them up because I've got estimates. The remarkable sacrifices one has to make in this business -- and I'm not too sure that I did the right thing. The reason I'm telling you this story is because I hope to meet with people from the associations representing these organizations at 5:30. We had actually been scheduled to meet right now, but because of estimates and having to deal with this whole issue of the back country, I had to push that meeting back.

An Hon. Member: I'd fire the House Leader.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd fire the House Leader too.

An Hon. Member: He probably took your tickets.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was going to find out if he took my tickets, or where they went. Knowing full well that the Canucks will be in for another round, I'll try to catch a game then, hoping that the opposition will have passed my estimates by that time.

So I'm meeting with people at 5:30. Quite honestly, we're probably down to about two remaining issues on the back-country policy. If we can clean those up today, then we're just about there in terms of arriving at an indication for the industry, one way or the other, as to where we're going as a government. I appreciate that you asked the question of my predecessor. The answer should give you an indication that things have moved quite a way, and hopefully at 5:30 today we can conclude this issue one way or the other so people know where they stand.

[3:15]

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, there are quite a few people who have questions. I don't know whether you're going to get out of here at 5:30 for the hockey game or not. I don't have a lot more, but one of the other members said they had stacks.

One thing I neglected to discuss with the minister was taxes on wells, which he mentioned before. That's where I did get into a discussion with that person. I informed him very clearly. I gave him your responses to the questions that were asked in the House concerning whether you were going to put a tax on wells or not. I said: "You make up your own mind as to whether you believe that there will be taxes or a fee on wells or not."

One last question that I'd like to deal with is about the environmental tax on tires and batteries. Can the minister tell me what that brings in in dollars each year? Is all of that money being expended on looking after the tires and batteries that are accumulating in the province? I'm sorry if the minister responded to that question earlier. I guess the Liberals were hogging all the time during your estimates. I didn't have a chance to ask you, and I didn't want to sit through all of it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, there are times when I don't want to sit through all of it, either. I can see that there are no hockey fans on the other side if you want to stay here past 5:30 p.m.

An Hon. Member: I'll be gone.

An Hon. Member: He'll be racing to the plane.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right.

In any event, I did answer that question. I'm sorry; I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but they're quite impressive. I just don't have them here with me. I could put them on the record when we continue estimates. The answer to that question is actually on the record.

L. Fox: I'll certainly conclude as fast as I can, because I am a hockey fan as well and I appreciate that all members, especially right now with the excitement around the play-offs, want to watch....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, if I can catch a spare seat on the plane.

Earlier in the estimates, I asked questions about the management of Tweedsmuir Park, and I know the minister is now prepared to give me those answers. The first question was with respect to the management of the bug kill in Tweedsmuir Park, because it's now moving out of the park into the working forest and creating a real problem. Could

[ Page 11025 ]

the minister tell me what kind of management there is? Is there any plan to deal with the bug kill within Tweedsmuir Park?

Hon. M. Sihota: I noted that you said you were a hockey fan, but you omitted to tell us whether you were a Canucks fan or a Leafs fan. I assume that you're a Leafs fan....

L. Fox: I'm a B.C. boy.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, okay; fair enough. There's still hope there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Listen, I had to give up my seat; the last thing you're going to do is get mine.

In any event, as the hon. member indicated, there are areas in Tweedsmuir Park where there are outbreaks. As the hon. member knows, this is a natural occurrence. It happens in any natural area, including, of course, the park. There is an area on the west side of St. Thomas Bay near a lake -- I think it's called Eutsuk Lake -- which the Ministry of Forests has been monitoring with B.C. Parks staff on an annual basis. The area is in a watershed, and there is a problem with beetles in the area. Ministry of Forests staff have been advised that there is not a serious problem at this point.

In 1991 the Ministry of Forests and B.C. Parks conducted a controlled burn in different areas of Tweedsmuir Park to control a potential beetle outbreak and fire hazard. They are regularly monitored and reviewed with the Forest Service, and any problems are addressed with controlled burns.

L. Fox: One of the problems I have, I guess, is that we let it go to the point where we have to burn it. It seems to me that if we're really concerned about the habitat and all the other values, and we want a healthy working park, we would try to be a little more proactive, rather than reactive, in dealing with this issue. There are presently a number of places throughout the park where wildlife cannot even access the water because of the blowdown. I have seen it; I have talked to an individual who has a guide-outfitter lodge and has brought me pictures and a movie, and I'll gladly make those available to the minister.

It seems to me that we should somehow be able to manage it so we don't have to get to the point where we have to do broadcast burns. One of the fears and rumours around that region right now is that once again, we're going to do a lot of burning within the park. It's troublesome to a lot of people. The minister may or may not be aware, but these broadcast burns, or controlled burns, oftentimes are not so controlled, because the weather conditions can change so rapidly, specifically in this kind of dry wood. If we don't manage this in a healthy way, in the very near future we are going to have a situation similar to Yellowstone Park, where nature did take its course and burned it all.

Just outside of the park, last year the Ministry of Forests used a local individual who did some horse logging of bug-killed trees in order to control it. You would never know that those logs were removed from those woods. There were about 12 loads of logs taken out, and because of the value of wood today it was economical. Because it was done during the winter when the bugs are dormant, in terms of managing the bug kill the results were very effective. In situations such as Tweedsmuir, would the minister agree that there may be an opportunity to do some horse logging of bug-killed trees to keep that danger from spreading?

Hon. M. Sihota: It strikes me that it must be very expensive to engage in horse logging in isolated areas. I heard what you had to say about your constituent having done that in the area, so there is obviously some capacity in that region. On a general basis, I just wanted to put that on the record as a concern. If you are asking me whether I would be disposed to doing that in this area, given the capacity, the answer is no. We have taken the view that we will allow some natural events to take their course within a park. We will do some spraying, and we will do the appropriate monitoring with the Ministry of Forests.

I'm not the first to have said this. In fact, I was in this House when the former Minister of Parks, Mr. Huberts, a member of the Social Credit Party, said that a park is a park is a park. That highlights the philosophy that we have taken in this province with regard to parks. That's why we have not allowed logging or mining in parks, and I'm inclined to stay with that approach.

L. Fox: When we talked about logging in the statements, I can only suppose what at least one of your predecessors may have said with respect to park management. When you are trying to control a predator or something which could destroy something that is truly a very scenic and natural biological setting, I would have hoped that we would have seen some forward thinking with respect to how we might best do that and preserve the natural setting. Horse logging or helicopter logging does not destroy the park, specifically if it's removing bug-killed trees. However, I'll accept the minister's statement for what it was.

One other question that I asked at that point was about the issue of white metal and if there was any proactive program to remove white metal from the rural landfills, because that was their number one issue to try to deal with.

Along with that, let me point out one other thing to the minister, which he may or may not have heard. In many rural parts of the province today, there is no ability to dispose of a used fridge that is non-functional but still has Freon in it. The landfills won't accept it, and B.C. Hydro's Power Smart program won't accept it because it's non-functional. So the individual is left with this used fridge sitting in his or her yard, with no ability to get rid of it. Is the minister aware of that problem in rural British Columbia, and is his ministry trying to address it?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I am aware of it. Yes, we are trying to address it. Yes, I think you raised it before in the House during these estimates; and yes, I had a note on it at the time -- I don't have it here with me right now. I can amplify on it a little later on. But we had moved past that stage of estimates -- it's not your fault -- and I don't think I put it on the record at the time. So I'll get an answer on that for the next stage of estimates, or I'll just forward it to the hon. member by mail.

L. Fox: Yes, I know I brought it to the floor at the same time as the Tweedsmuir issue, but I'll be more than satisfied with a direct answer on it.

I have one last question. I have a number of friends who presently happen to be selling fishing licences. The demand for photo ID is putting many of the private individuals in a position where they feel it's no longer in the best interests of their business to continue to sell them for the very small percentage they get from the sale and because of the ill will it creates.

To put it into perspective, I have one individual whose wife works in the same store. If she wishes to buy a fishing

[ Page 11026 ]

licence, even though she works in the store and is the wife of the owner of the store, if she doesn't have her purse with her, she literally has to go home, get her driver's licence, come back and physically show it to the store owner, who is her husband, before she can receive her fishing licence. Or if her husband's father, who happens to live in Lillooet, decides to come up for the weekend and go fishing, even though his son is selling him the licence, in order to comply with the regulation he must also prove to his own son by photo ID that he in fact is a B.C. resident.

[3:30]

I guess my question is: is it really legitimate that individuals have to be that literal with the policy? Is the policy so finite and so tight that people have to be that literal? Or in cases where the store owner has been in a community for 25 or 30 years and has sold fishing licences to people in that small community for probably the last 15 years, knowing very well that they're B.C. residents, couldn't he determine that without demanding that they show photo ID?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a couple of points. First of all, we require some proof that you're from British Columbia. That's where the photo ID notion comes in, because there are benefits that accrue to British Columbians who acquire these licences. That's the reason behind the policy. I suspect that in the case of husband and wife, perhaps if one could prove that relationship one could show some flexibility if someone had forgotten their ID. But that's the exception to the rule, and I would only consider it to be an exception that.... In other words, I think you're right in terms of saying that it has been interpreted literally, and I don't have a real problem with that.

However, having said all of that, let's just put that behind us for a moment. The other day in the House, I think it was the member for Okanagan East who was asking this question. I indicated that we are going to be moving soon -- and when I say soon I mean within a year or two; that's what we're looking at -- to a new system which will eliminate the need for ongoing photographic ID. We'll be moving to a credit card kind of system with a magnetic strip at the back, which then works for fishing, hunting and all the different licences that you have to get, and we just run that through.

To get it in the first place, you'll have to show photo ID, but thereafter it's your card for life. So you can just move on with it without having to worry about whether or not you left your purse at home, as long as that purse doesn't contain the card.

L. Fox: Given the history of this government, that almost prompts a question on how much this card is going to cost the taxpayer. But I'm still concerned. Does the minister not feel that the ill will this demand is creating in terms of those store owners is going to cause them to lose agencies for the sale of fishing licences?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are 1,300 people who issue these licences, and we do get some complaints -- maybe a couple of dozen a year -- on the upper end. Because people have commented on it and because, quite frankly, staff in the Ministry of Environment have said that you could fill out up to 16 different pieces of paper with regard to a wildlife licence and up to a dozen pieces of paper with regard to an angling licence, there has to be a more expeditious way of doing it. That's why we're moving towards this system.

If we do get there -- I'm sure we will -- then, of course, there will be a million-dollar advertising campaign to promote it. [Laughter.] I mean, surely you wouldn't expect anything but that, with those nice B.C. 21 logos and the Minister of Employment and Investment leading the charge. I won't be that far behind.

In all seriousness, we're looking at it. One of the opportunities that's always available for us, of course, is to take a look at corporate sponsorship. I'm not making that commitment; I'm just saying that's one thing that has some attractiveness to a lot of people.

But in any event, yes, there is obviously concern that people may not do the work anymore, and inasmuch as we're receiving few complaints, they're enough to justify a look at this. There has been some great ingenuity shown on the part of staff to try to get ahead of this problem, and that's why we're looking at moving to this system.

L. Fox: I have one final follow-up question. Can the minister tell me if there have been more complaints since the demand for photo ID was instituted into policy than there were previously? Has there been an increase in complaints from the retail sellers of fishing licences?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, they have gone up, but you should also know, as the member for Okanagan East mentioned the other day, that there is a larger concern around commissions that are paid for the work that is done.

G. Wilson: Just for the information of the minister, my questions today are going to be directed primarily toward the land aspect of the ministry. In particular, I would like some detailed information with respect to the operations of the surveyor general and the mapping systems that are in place. I would then like to talk about land acquisition and sale, and from there talk about the policy within the ministry that specifically has to do with coastal lands, foreshore lease holdings and foreign ownership.

In my remarks at the commencement of these estimates I said that the minister is in a unique situation, because I believe this to be the most important chair in cabinet. It is unique in the sense that this minister has both Environment and Lands together, which, of course, is an appropriate and sensible way to put land acquisitions together. But the information that this minister has at his disposal is only as good as the inventory of land that we have.

I would like to start my questions today regarding the gathering of information and putting together an integrated system that provides us with an accurate inventory of land, by talking about how that mapping system is tied into ministerial policy. I would specifically like to know how Environment and Lands might coordinate mapping with respect to the physical nature of the map, if we're dealing with geophysical maps.

I would like to know if we might also be looking at mapping that has to do with ungulates, vegetation, water, soil types and those kinds of things, and how that might be integrated with the Ministry of Forests, which clearly has a different set of concerns with respect to its base maps, but nevertheless is going to want to have some integrated system. I would like to know about integration with Parks, which must have an accurate set of base data if they are to make sensible decisions to provide

long-term stability in his ministry.

Perhaps we could start off talking about the surveyor general with respect to the mapping systems that are put in place. Perhaps the minister could tell us how the development and implementation of the cadastral system is working -- whether that is starting to provide an integrated system for this government based on some kind of uniform computerized mapping system or whether we are still in the

[ Page 11027 ]

situation we were in a year ago, where ministries were using different systems and there was a lack of compatibility in terms of trying to coordinate and integrate those systems.

Hon. M. Sihota: Your question focused on the systems. Our approach is that it's not the system that matters as much as it is the data that's collected and how that data can be shared with ministries. We have a corporate methodology -- "corporate" meaning across government -- with regard to the collection of that data, and through an appropriate networking system it can be accessed by all the different ministries. There's a central methodology that we're developing, whereby people can collect the data in a way that should help various ministries, be it ours, Agriculture, Forests or any other ministry involved in this type of work.

G. Wilson: Has the government invested in one computerized mapping system? Or are we all on GIS or some other system? Is every ministry developing maps to the same scale, for example, so that they're compatible on base maps? I'm just talking about base maps. I know that in the estimates a year ago for the former Minister of Environment and Lands that had not yet happened, although there was some discussion as to what system would be most compatible and most cost-effective. It is a question that also came up with respect to the auditor general's report in Public Accounts last year. I wonder if the minister can tell us what progress the government has made.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we now have a standard strategic plan with regard to the mapping of data, which contains common scales, common standards and an integrated management system for the data that's collected.

G. Wilson: I congratulate the minister if that's been accomplished or if we're accomplishing that, because that clearly is going to make the information more accurate and more relevant.

The reason I ask is that a number of very significant projects are going on at the moment that will impact the ministry.

Those projects are CORE and the CORE process; the Island Highway, a very major project that is under B.C. 21 -- there's going to be environmental impact and review with respect to streams and management of systems through sensitive land areas where construction of that highway is going to take place; the aboriginal land strategy, which again all of the reports coming out of this ministry repeatedly indicate this ministry is actively involved in, in the preparation of data and in the analysis of historical materials referenced; and lastly, of course, the whole question of looking at the islands in the Georgia Strait region and also some of the islands in the northern end of my riding -- in the areas around Queen Charlotte Sound -- and how we are actually putting together an accurate inventory of those marine resources and the islands on which they impact.

Those are the four areas I'd like to concentrate on.

With respect to CORE, does CORE have access through this ministry to an integrated set of maps that might be provided for them to start to make a determination -- and I'm very specific in my questions here -- firstly, not only of the timber resource but also of the demographics, i.e., the existing and projected population; secondly, of the impact on water systems -- primarily municipal water systems or water systems where logging activity may have an impact on domestic demand; and thirdly, with respect to alternative land uses that have economic impact -- i.e., upland grazing areas or land set aside for recreational uses that are not parks or park-designated?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I don't think there's anything that CORE doesn't have access to within government, including any data they need and including the data you refer to. They are able to access it as any ministry would for the purposes of the work they do.

[3:45]

Secondly, as you know, not all the data collection is complete or perfect. Where there are imperfections, obviously there is more work to be done. But, generally, the answer to your question is yes.

G. Wilson: Could the minister then tell us how much money is being set aside for the corporate land information strategic plan? How much is being set aside with respect to cadastral data management, which is critically important, and the

geo-referencing procedure currently underway within the ministry? Is that investment being made with a view to a comprehensive inventory, a base of inventory, that is going to be interministerial in nature? Or is it specifically designed with respect to the more traditional definition and cataloguing of Crown lands?

When I say traditional, Crown lands have traditionally been used through leaseholdings or some kind of licensed occupation for resource use or other economic activity. It looks like we're now moving more toward Crown land being put up for private sale, where there has been recreational use in the past -- and there seems to have been a policy to move toward that, and I'd like to get to some questions on that in a minute. Also, there's the aboriginal land strategy and, of course, the overall management of forests, with a view to the 12 percent set-aside. If the minister could talk a bit about those three programs, we could see exactly how much investment is going into this inventory.

Hon. M. Sihota: For cadastral, it's about $4 million a year; for TRIM, it's about $5 million a year; and we have a corporate resource inventory which I believe runs at about $11 million a year. Across government, the expenditures on the data are about $40 million to $50 million a year.

G. Wilson: Clearly, then, if we look at the overall levels of ministry operations, that money has to be picked up and shared by others. With respect to the background documentation for these estimates provided by the minister's staff regarding

land-management-related information, there is an opportunity to sell services to a variety of different user groups. I wonder if the recoveries received through the sale of those services offsets that $40 million to $50 million or whether that is specifically a line expenditure within this ministry. If so, where is it? I don't see it actually showing up in the figures, unless I've misread them.

Hon. M. Sihota: The expenditures within the ministry are about $13 million a year on cadastral and TRIM, and the recoveries are about $8.8 million.

G. Wilson: How much of those recoveries would be from other ministries -- i.e., simply a question of government buying from government -- and how much would actually come from private organizations, other local governments or first nations? I don't know if the minister has the breakdown. I don't want to drag these questions out any more than they have to be. What I'm leading up to is: how much information is actually prepared on behalf of first nations with respect to that? I notice that it also suggests that foreign governments

[ Page 11028 ]

are buying this information. I wonder how much we get from selling that information to foreign governments.

Hon. M. Sihota: Of the total recoveries, $5.9 million are from within government, and $2.84 million are from outside government. That includes the federal government, which, of course, would do some acquisitions for aboriginal groups, and it includes local governments. Very little of that -- probably in the range of $100,000 -- would be from the private sector.

G. Wilson: So it would be minuscule as to how much we're selling to foreign governments, presumably. We're not doing a lot of work for our neighbours to the south, for example, who might have an eye to something like the Thompson diversion. I would assume it's minuscule, given the figures that the minister's given. He might correct that if it's not so.

It's interesting that the minister is suggesting that a lot of that base data is available to CORE. One of the criticisms that we've had in the past with CORE is the fact that they don't seem to have at their disposal a consistent base inventory of resources or accurate demographic information with respect to projected land use. Without knowing what the

demographic trends are....

If I might, by way of a bit of a diversion -- but it's related -- I'd like to speak also about the Georgia basin initiative. My single greatest criticism of the Georgia basin initiative is that absolutely no accurate demographics are being reviewed and certainly no projections are being made with any degree of accuracy.

I wonder if the minister can tell us if there is any commitment by the ministry to look at demographic trends with respect to future demand, especially outside the lower mainland, so some projections can be made with respect to the diminishment of the working forest lands in relation to the increased demand that presumably is going to be placed upon those forests if we stay tied to a primary extractive sector economy.

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to demographic information, all three levels of government are involved in the collection and compilation of that information. We try to use that which is most exact. Given your background, hon. member, you know full well that that information is highly variable and does change significantly. CORE has access to the best information we have -- similarly for the Georgia basin strategy.

G. Wilson: If I could offer a recommendation -- albeit I'm sure I'll be accused at some point of asking the government to spend more money; at some appropriate time this minister will berate me for doing that -- I think it's essential that we start to channel additional funds, over what we're seeing here, to expand our mapping systems and to start looking at accurate population projections with respect to the demand on various kinds of land.

It's one thing to take a look at a cadastral data management system or set up any kind of land-based maps, but it's something else to look specifically at population densities with relation to arable land, livable flat land, land with water availability and soil types that are suitable for settlement and may not be under some other kind of hazard, and so on. The government doesn't have accurate data with respect to that at its disposal.

The reason I'm asking for this is that it strikes me that an initiative this government might want to undertake is to try to set up some system of coordinating the land mapping systems that are being done at the local level. Local governments are actively involved in it by virtue of their need to do land management through zoning and community planning. Coordinate that with what the provincial government is doing with respect to its land initiatives, like CORE. It's one thing to have all of these maps out there; it's something else to do a lot of counting of people.

But if nobody's bringing that information together and making some sense of it as to where we are today and where we're likely to be 10, 15, 20 or 60 years down the road, then the land use strategies that we put in place are not going to be very effective.

I offer that just by way of a suggestion. If it's possible, look into next year's budget, which I understand is going to be close to a balanced budget; 1996 is the target date. We might want to channel more money into those land-based mapping systems; we would be better off. With respect to that, I wonder if the minister can tell us what the current policy is on disposition of Crown land.

There has been some real growing concern among us -- I have a lot of concern and other members of the Alliance have concerns -- that the policies of the former government, which were to dispose of Crown land and essentially try to gain revenue through disposition of Crown land, are continuing under this government. The concern is not so much with respect to disposition of Crown lands that may be in blocks that were used in the past for various kinds of industrial or commercial activity; the concern is specifically with respect to waterfront property.

One of the legacies that we can hopefully leave to future generations of British Columbians is public access to the water systems and water courses of British Columbia. In my judgment, there can be no better cause of a government than to look after future generations, knowing that we have essentially deemed certain water systems available to the public and to limit -- I don't say remove entirely -- the opportunity for alienation of waterfront by private acquisition.

Historically, this government largely gave away much of the waterfront properties in the major cities and settlement areas of this country to the major railway companies, which are now reneging on their responsibility around something like the Vancouver Island line.

I wonder what the government's position is on that and whether this minister has an opinion -- and whether or not we are still building revenues into our budgets from the increased sale of Crown lands, especially of waterfront properties that the vast majority will ultimately be alienated from through a very small percentage of British Columbians having ownership.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is right when he says that revenue is secured through the disposition of Crown land. But there is another side of the equation which he ignores.

Perhaps better than me simply standing up in the House and telling him that I'm not an advocate of, nor does this ministry engage in, subdivision of lakefront lands -- apart from allowing those who have existing leases to acquire their leasehold interest, which has continued but in that limited sense only -- is the fact that apart from revenue simply being generated from the disposition of land, it is being applied by this government to acquire significant pieces of land adjacent to water courses for the use and enjoyment of the public.

It's not simply the words, hon. member; it's backed up by very firm action by this government.

I need not point any further than the greater Victoria area in terms of what we've done as a government. For example, as you know or should know, under the Commonwealth

[ Page 11029 ]

Nature Legacy program that we've announced, we have acquired land in the Gowlland Range-Tod Inlet region of Finlayson Arm to protect it for future generations. In terms of my opportunity and privilege to serve in this portfolio, I cannot think of an announcement or decision made by government in which I've taken as much pride as that one. I believe that this government expenditure in the neighbourhood of $9 million is an indication of our desire to protect that area. Nor is that a one-off decision.

Again using this area as an example, we just acquired a remarkable piece of land in the Glencoe Cove area in the Oak Bay region of greater Victoria. It's a significant acquisition of property. It's not simply stating the policy that we want to preserve this as well; we've actually utilized the funds we have to go out and acquire pieces of land that do that.

administration. And there will be more.

[4:00]

It will happen because our future generations need to have access to these areas. When opportunities arise we look at further acquisitions. I hope also that in the weeks ahead you will note that we are continuing along this line or trend we've set as a government with regard to the acquisition of these lands.

G. Wilson: By way of a diversion, I think I'm going to have to come in to the private members' day to make a statement on the correct pronunciation of kilometre. That's a pet issue I'll get to later. It's kilometre, millimetre and centimetre, as opposed to barometer and tachometer. Anyway, I don't want to get into that. It's just that it drives me crazy.

I understand that there is a set-aside policy and a parks acquisition policy, and I'm not taking issue with that. I think this government has moved forward to try and set aside some parks, and has taken criticism on some and been applauded on others. I'm talking more about the whole question of protection of foreshore or alienation of the foreshore through private upland ownership that allows for the leaseholding of foreshore leases on lakefront as well as salt water.

The difficulty we have in a riding such as mine, which has a large tract of coastland and a number of very popular lakes, is that it is used not only for recreation but also for commercial activity. The problem we have is that frequently there is conflict between the commercial users and the demands the commercial users may have, for example, for protected bays or estuaries to waterways for booming logs, for longline, for shellfish culture, for finfish culture and so on.

If the upland is privatized and therefore the riparian right to the upland is given to that private owner, there is an opportunity for alienation of the foreshore. That's my concern. I believe that the state of Oregon and possibly Washington now have taken some very strong action with respect to protection of the riparian right to foreshore and leaving it in the public domain. That's what I'm talking about.

I point out that in some of the negotiations going on with first nations, the first nations are being advised -- and wisely so -- that the lease lands or leaseholdings they have within their particular area have strips set aside that still are designated under the particular first nation. I'll give you an example. The Sliammon Indian band has kept a strip of land along the foreshore outside of the land that is leased to leaseholders. As a result, the Sliammon Indian band now have riparian right to the foreshore, which protects their interest with respect to shellfish harvesting and so on.

That's not an unwise thing to do. It has created a problem with the Assessment Authority, because those leaseholders are still being assessed as though they have waterfront property -- which indeed they do not have. There's going to be a bit of a legal challenge to that coming up. I would think this minister would be on the side of those who argue that it is not waterfront, because that land is set aside.

So I'm really particularly curious, then, about what acquisition the government is looking at with respect to picking up that foreshore area and some adjacent upland to keep them in the public domain and prohibit the alienation of that foreshore through private leaseholding. Otherwise, this ministry has to review on an application-by-application basis whether there should be foreshore uses of that water. The difficulty we have with that is that oftentimes there will be a foreshore licence granted to a logging company, for example, that is involved in a logging show that needs a licence of occupation to put logs in the water so they can boom them and take them out. It is a

longstanding licence; the activity is over within three to five years. After that the licence still exists, residential development takes place around it, and the next thing you know is that the timber is ready for harvesting again. That company comes in and says: "We have a licence of occupation here. We wish to engage in an activity that we did 30, 40 or 60 years ago." Of course, you now have a residential uproar because the rest of that foreshore is alienated for recreational use.

If that land was set aside so that the riparian right to the upland remained with the Crown, then presumably there could be a more community-based use or a more -- I hate the word because it might be misinterpreted here in terms of my political affiliations -- communal use of the foreshore rather than necessarily moving toward private leaseholding. If the minister doesn't appreciate this as a problem, he should.

If it isn't a problem in some areas of British Columbia, it is going to become a problem, because as members of his staff well know -- and I know they know, because we've had many a discussion about it -- when you have an area such as Pender Harbour, for example, which has all kinds of alienation of the foreshore -- some legal, much not legal -- it's going to be very difficult for the ministry responsible for Crown lands to send their people in to enforce a rigid policy that may be introduced after the fact.

This is not a spurious question. This is a serious one, and I think future generations of British Columbians might like to know that there was some forethought given to protecting the public interest with respect to foreshore use.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the question. I'm sorry if I said kilometre or whatever it was that I said in the way that I said it. If I said it wrong, I appreciate that it may have driven you crazy, but that's what I'm supposed to do during estimates, so I'm achieving my purpose.

I agree with the comments you make. We as a ministry try to deal with that in a flexible way through a variety of instruments. We have, for example, protected upstream

[ Page 11030 ]

riparian rights under the Pacific Spirit Park agreement that we came up with. So that's an example. But in other cases, we recognize that there is a need for land on water to be set aside for logging operations. We as a ministry have come to the conclusion that a generic policy per se, a blanket policy, doesn't work, and that flexibility is a more valuable way of dealing with these issues.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I know it is the job of this minister to drive me crazy. It just irritates me that he does it with such ease, that's all.

If I could make a case, then, for acquisition.... Again, I know this is going to come home to haunt me at some point, because this minister will again claim that I want to spend more money. Can the minister tell us what the current policy within the government is for the acquisition or maintenance of much of the island areas in the Broughton Archipelago within Crown land inventory? The reason I ask is that it seems there is an inordinate amount of foreign ownership in the Broughton Archipelago area and in the areas around Kingcome Inlet, Knight Inlet and Simoom Sound.

Much of the islands is now being picked up by offshore buyers who have an interest in coming in and using them primarily for commercial charter operations and offshore recreation. The minister will know that that is an extremely fragile ecosystem. It's an ecosystem in which the predominant orca population of British Columbia exists. It's also an area that is abundant with a whole variety of sea mammals as well as sea birds. Would the minister tell us whether there's any serious consideration being given to setting aside the Broughton region as a marine park?

Hon. M. Sihota: Nice to see you in the chair, hon. Chair. It's nice to see someone who speaks a different language in the chair.

With regard to the Broughton Archipelago, I agree with you, it is a sensitive area. First of all, I don't know whether you're asking me to engage in acquisitions of land in that area to prevent foreign ownership. If that's what you're asking, I've got some problems with that. It seems to me that if we're going to be buying land, surely we ought not to be buying it to prevent foreign ownership; there must be reasons to acquire it that go beyond that in terms of the environmental sensitivity of the region.

I believe it was around September 1992 that we announced a park in the Broughton Archipelago. So that was done at that time. I see the hon. member shaking his head. Perhaps he can amplify on the question he was trying to ask.

G. Wilson: I wasn't suggesting that we try to buy land that is foreign-owned. I was suggesting that if the area were set aside in terms of its allowable uses, it would discourage what seems to be an inordinate amount of foreign interest in that land. I don't believe it's in British Columbia's best interest to have that land held outside of this province. Frankly, I don't think it's in our interest to have too great a proportion of that land in private hands -- which is not a position that I take lightly, because I believe in the private ownership of land.

But with respect to the proposed park, I would say that the lines were drawn.... It was originally anticipated that the park would prohibit the expansion of fish farms in that area, with recognition of the need to set aside the Broughton area as a marine.... It wasn't given a classic marine park designation, because that has a different implication. But there was certainly going to be a type of ecosystem reserve classification. That simply didn't happen, outside of lines on a map.

It's in my riding, and I have an opportunity to visit it on a reasonably frequent basis. I can tell you that there is still proposed logging activity in some very ecologically sensitive areas with respect to salmon streams, and there is still a reasonable proliferation of fish farms. I have on occasion asked this minister about it, and my colleague from Okanagan East is going to elaborate on those areas very shortly.

So I'm suggesting that the ministry needs to recognize this is a unique marine ecosystem and that the islands within this system are very much ecologically integrated with respect to the wildlife that frequent the area. The economics of that area is clearly based on fishing and logging. I'm not suggesting those activities could not continue, but the scale at which logging can continue on some of those islands has to be looked at seriously. Obviously, when the CORE process starts to look at that, there's going to have to be a very substantive amount of discussion on the type of activity that would be permitted.

But having said that, I think the ministry needs to set up an administrative jurisdiction within that area that will be much more vigilant in protecting the region. Setting it aside as a marine park is one possibility. Another might be an exploration of Islands Trust expansion, looking at the Islands Trust coming in. I think there are some problems with that, but it may be one way that could be looked at. Simply putting a designation on a map clearly hasn't worked, because very few people in the area know where the lines are, and I don't think anybody is respecting them.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hesitated for a minute, in part because you didn't ask a question, and I was trying in my own mind to figure out what you're trying to get at here.

[4:15]

I recognize that this area is unique and sensitive, and I realize also that the area is a treasure for British Columbia. Yes, I've had occasion to be in that area and to meet the people from the area. Having said all that, let me also say that there are a number of things we're doing. First, we've created a class A park in that area. There is no logging or shellfish harvesting within that park; that's my understanding. Second, I'm sure that there is some activity outside the park, but we're not in a position to control that.

As I've indicated publicly in this House to a question you asked in question period some time ago, we are not granting any new fish-farm licences in that area, in part because of a recognition of its sensitivity.

G. Wilson: I'll just bring my questions full circle and then yield to another member. It strikes me that if there were ever an area that needed to have a comprehensive mapping system with an appropriate and proper inventory.... I'm not convinced that there is no logging within that red line; I think there is, but I'll check on that because I'm not certain. There is certainly one proposed licence that I believe is right in the middle of the park, and there is an opportunity for that licence to be acted on next year. But I'll check and get back to the minister with respect to that.

It would seem clearly that the line has been drawn to accommodate fish farms, and that's a concern. So my question, then -- because the minister would perhaps like a question to respond to -- would be this: would the Broughton Archipelago be included in the information that is being pulled together through the mapping systems and the database that's being developed? Is there going to be a

[ Page 11031 ]

comprehensive, integrated land management system

available to British Columbians so that we have an opportunity to review inventory?

I would say that what's needed there on a macro scale is much of what was successfully accomplished on a micro scale in the Sechelt Inlet area. When the Sechelt Inlet strategy was completed, we actually had area designations that defined what kind of activities would be permitted and what wouldn't. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not there is an opportunity to have that work done. If we don't act swiftly to ensure that the so-called class A park is in fact....

If the boundaries are accurately drawn -- and I don't believe they are -- are the activities that are prohibited within them actually not happening? I'm not sure that's the case, either. If we don't act swiftly to deal with that, we are going to lose that region, and it would be a real tragedy.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I will consider that. I agree with you that it is an area that needs attention within the province, so I will grant you that.

M. Farnworth: I have a few questions for the minister on an issue of importance to a number of constituents in my constituency concerning the Swan-e-set golf and country club and resort which has been developed across the river in Pitt Meadows.

I am asking these questions because of the problems of the discharge of effluent into the Pitt River from the golf course and the subsequent resort development. It has a minimal discharge from any other activity into it at the current time, and it is unique in that it is a tidal river which flows into North America's only tidal lake. The residents in the area -- Burke Mountain Naturalists and other naturalist groups, the northeast Coquitlam ratepayers and the district of Coquitlam -- are quite concerned about what effect this increase in effluent discharge is going to have on the river itself. In fact, it is recognized as one of the cleanest rivers in the lower mainland.

I need some answers to questions. A number of constituents such as Chris Laustrup and Mike Griffin have written to me, and they have a number of questions which need to be answered. I would like to know if the minister is aware of some of the problems associated with the Swan-e-set golf program and the issue of discharge into the Pitt River?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thanks to your lobbying efforts I have become well aware of the problem. I guess that's a comment on your persistence on behalf of your constituents.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to follow that up. What precautions are being taken to cope with the high tides and the likelihood of effluent backing up into the Pitt River? A major concern is the fact that effluent won't flow into the Fraser but will instead back up into the Pitt River and there will be an increasing concentration of effluent over time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I understand that there is some treatment of the effluent, but I also understand that your constituents don't consider that to be an answer by itself. I understand there is a fair bit of concern in the community, and I believe that some of your constituents have requested an information meeting. If that is what they request and if you think it wise, I would be happy to oblige and to provide staff at that meeting so that people have a better idea of where the ministry is coming from, and so that the ministry could be apprised of their concerns in order to take them into account.

M. Farnworth: That was going to be my next question, because I think that's what is required. There is a lot of concern about what's going on there, and I'm familiar with the treatment that is being proposed. The golf course is looking at the ozone treatment of effluent. At the same time there is a great deal of interest in ozone treatment at the regional district level in this chloramine/chlorine debate. Is it possible for the public to examine records for discharge effluent into the river or to other areas throughout the province?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that information is generally available under freedom of information, at least through that system. If the hon. member wants any particular information, if he corresponds with me I will make sure that staff provide him with the appropriate information.

M. Farnworth: One of the issues of concern if we do arrive at a solution is that people want to have some comfort that they have access to the records. A lot of non-governmental organizations want access, such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists, as I said before. I think that is extremely important. I'd be very pleased if we could arrange that.

Finally, I'd just like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to the minister to come out and visit our constituency, because the minister is undertaking a great deal of work in our constituency, such as Burke Mountain Park, Colony Farm land use and this particular issue. I hope you take me up on that offer.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, just this very morning I was talking to staff about the idea of going into the Pinecone-Burke Mountain area in July. That's a probability right now, so I may well have the occasion to visit your constituency

J. Tyabji: As the minister knows, I want to talk at some length about aquaculture and the fish farms -- particularly in the Broughton Archipelago -- in terms of the policy in general. I have one specific question that may need some research, so I'm going to bring that up first and then go into some general ones.

There was a fish-farm application in front of the Ministry of Environment last year during the estimates, No. 1407531. Could the minister please let me know where that application is and whether or not it was approved?

Further to that, I'm sure the minister has reviewed the file with regard to fish farming in the Broughton Archipelago and understands the diseases in that area, furunculosis and

catalyst-causing furunculosis, which may have wiped out a great deal of the wild salmon stock in addition to possibly the prawns and the oolichans and the benthic environments up to one kilometre downstream from the fish farm sites. This is the issue I'd like to canvass with the minister.

The minister has said that under his direction, there are no more licences being granted for fish farms through the ministry. However, I have evidence here that some sites will be constructed prior to licensing. That has been done in the past. Could the minister please let me know what the situation is with regard to licensing? What is the current practice? How has this minister changed the ministry's policy with regard to fish farms? That's an important starting point, because last year and the year before we spent quite a bit of time on this issue with the former Minister of Environment.

If I can find out where the new minister is coming from -- he is new to this issue -- that would be very helpful.

[ Page 11032 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: We have not issued any new licences in the Broughton Archipelago. I have asked that there be a stop on the issuance of new licences. We are studying the whole issue provincewide with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because that ministry has a role to play in this. We are reviewing our policy options with the industry and others in order to assess a conclusive position on the matter, but since I have been minister we have not issued new licences. It also causes me some concern that you would suggest that there are areas where people are constructing farms without approval.

If that is occurring, I would sure like to know the details. I'd be happy to take that information from you if you have it, either privately or in this House.

Finally, was the application you mentioned in the Broughton Archipelago? Fine. We'll try to get an answer to you.

J. Tyabji: I am just trying to see if I have the specific reference to that one application. I have so much material here. This application -- 1407531 -- was for the mouth of Kingcome Inlet in the Broughton Archipelago.

Last year I received a letter from Ms. Alexandra Morton. Copies were sent to the minister's office. The letter cited a number of people: biologists, lodge owners and people who have lived in the Broughton Archipelago for many years and have monitored the marine environment. One of the points she raised in the letter is that she is trying very hard to get one farm-free access for the wild stock through the Broughton Archipelago so that even if there are diseases in the farm fish, they won't be subject to every single wild run in order to get to the rivers.

In this letter she says that she was quite surprised to see that sites that were still in the application process were already installed. The letter is dated May 28, 1993, and it should be in the minister's file from his predecessor:

"Sites still in the application process were already installed. They were being advertised in our local paper for the purpose of allowing the public to oppose the sites, and yet the farms were already in. When questioned, Crown Lands senior land officer Richard Brunning said that advertising was merely a formality."

Obviously, that's something that is in a letter; I haven't heard it from that person. It is being said that it was stated by that person, and the minister has said he would like to follow up. That person obviously needs an opportunity to address that comment being attributed to him, but certainly Ms. Morton is a very credible marine biologist, and for her to have tracked this and perceived that to be the attitude is, I think, s a serious concern.

[4:30]

The minister has said that he is looking into fish farms in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. I'm not sure how much time the minister has spent on some of the diseases occurring in the fish farms and the fact that diseased fish are being put in. If the minister has been reviewing the files, the fact that a number of farms.... In fact, there are dense populations of the farms now in some of the red zones of the wild runs. Has the minister looked into that? When he talks about policy options, is there a possible option of removing existing farms?

Hon. M. Sihota: I had occasion to meet with the author of that letter after it was written -- around November 1993, I believe, if memory serves me right -- and she certainly made a case that we had to consider. I think she had an impact on the decisions that we as a ministry subsequently made. I don't recall seeing any subsequent correspondence from her, although we get a blizzard of it, so I may have missed some. But I think she would be satisfied with what we as a ministry have done to date.

Second, with regard to issues that you raised about diseases, I'm well aware of them. That is, obviously, one of the concerns that spurred us to take the action that we took. Third, with regard to the red zones, there are some farms within red zones that pre-existed the establishment of our applications system or the identification of the zone, but since then, as I understand it, there has been no issuance of new licences. There might have been one -- I'm functioning from memory here -- but apart from that, there haven't been any new ones.

J. Tyabji: Before I go on to further questions, the minister hasn't answered one question. Many farms were licensed for red zones after the red zones were designated. Would one of the policy options be for the minister to revoke the licences of farms found to be harmful to the marine environment?

Hon. M. Sihota: We canvassed that issue at our meeting, in terms of how many were issued. I remember very explicitly saying that I would research that. I remember very explicitly coming to the conclusion that the problem wasn't such that lots of these were issued once the zone had been established. But I don't think that's either here or there. We're trying to look prospectively instead of retroactively. On a prospective basis, I'll assess the policy options when they're before me. I'm not prepared to give you a commitment one way or the other right now.

J. Tyabji: The minister referred to his meeting last November. It is true that Ms. Morton, with whom he met -- and we've had subsequent meetings with her -- was very happy with the minister's attitude and approach to this issue. The minister said that he's not sure if he has received other correspondence. I can assure him that he has received quite a bit. The issue has become more serious. There are two separate issues: the transmission of diseases from farm fish and the lack of salmon return this year. There has been virtually no salmon found. There has also been a dramatic decline in prawns and oolichans and there has been no spring salmon.

I'd like to share parts of a letter dated April 15, 1994. In addition to the minister receiving this letter, he has also received a copy of a letter sent to the federal minister about the diseased fish and the fact that tens of thousands of fish diseased with furunculosis are being put into the marine environment in the Broughton Archipelago as we speak, through fish farms licensed by the provincial government.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

If the minister will not commit to revoking the licences of farms operating in red zones, which are identified by his ministry as being so environmentally sensitive that they should not be interfered with.... If there will not be a consideration that those licences should be revoked in recognition of the environmental sensitivity of that area, perhaps the minister would like to make a commitment about farms that habitually put tens of thousands of diseased fish into farm pens.

Those pens are, of course, open, in terms of transmission through the water, to that disease travelling downstream, and to the loads of antibiotics that are fed to the diseased fish falling below the pens for consumption by other organisms in the marine environment and then passing through the food chain. Perhaps one of the policy options the

[ Page 11033 ]

minister is pursuing is revoking the licences of farms that habitually put diseased fish into their farms.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I said that I wouldn't commit one way or the other; I didn't say that things were out of consideration. You were careful in nine-tenths of what you said to use the word "commitment," and at the end, you used the word "consideration." Nothing is out of the realm of consideration. I'm just not going to commit myself to one course of action over another, nor show my hand in terms of where I'm going until the work of the group we have established to do the study is concluded. When that is concluded, we will make decisions. I appreciate that there might be some impact on the environment. We do have cancellation provisions with regard to existing licence holders.

J. Tyabji: I understand the minister doesn't want to show his hand prior to the report coming out. Before going back to my line of questioning, I'd like to share some of the details of the April 1994 letter in which Ms. Morton says that the Stolt Sea Farm is applying for the Crown lands in Watson Cove for the purpose of putting in land-based crew quarters for the nearby fish farm. As the minister knows, in many cases the fish farms have float houses, so they don't need land-based crew.

Watson Cove is designated as a red zone. The minister has said there have been no new licences or fish farms in red zones in the Broughton Archipelago. Yet on April 4, 1994, the farm, which is in the red zone in front of Watson Cove, was towed back. This one is on top of a salmon migration route and schooling area, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had also stated that there were not going to be any farms placed on migration routes. This farm has had a history of fish diseased with furunculosis, and it has only recently been put into a new migration route and in a red zone.

Obviously, it is part of the problems that I hope will be considered by the people doing the study for the minister's review, prior to him making a decision about what action he'll be taking.

The minister should be aware, as well, that 1991 was the first year in which the wild coho stock returning to the area nearby the enhancement hatchery were heavily infected with furunculosis, which first appeared in the fish farms in 1989. So we have diseased fish being put into the pens with open sores and then being treated with antibiotics and having that transmitted to the wild stock.

Even though the Broughton Archipelago has historically been a very rich area and one of the world's greatest natural fish farms in terms of the wild stock's ability to regenerate, I believe that, because of the diseases that have been put in by the fish farms, the wild stock has virtually been wiped out. In terms of people's ability to find any of them, three salmon have been caught in the Broughton Archipelago since the season opened, and one was an Atlantic salmon which had escaped from the fish farms.

That's something I think the minister should put.... I suppose the minister doesn't want to interfere with the review that's going on by his ministry, but perhaps for the purpose of these estimates -- because we won't be able to canvass this again until next year, and I do worry that this is a very

time-sensitive issue -- could the minister outline the parameters of the study and to what extent his ministry is cooperating with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Hon. M. Sihota: We've agreed as a ministry to the action plan which allows us to address a number of concerns: to evaluate aboriginal, public and agency concerns; to secure a definition of industry ambitions in British Columbia, and to achieve what may be attainable, given government priorities and actions; to create a status report on the industry; to review all existing legislation, guidelines and standards governing salmon farming with regard to their adequacy and recommend changes where they are appropriate; to define environmental research issues that need to be worked on; and to develop operational guidelines and regulations for salmon farming. That's the answer to that question.

With regard to the other point that the hon. member made, remember one thing: there have been two instances of people trespassing on Crown lands with regard to fish farms, and in both cases people have been given cease-and-desist orders. So let's not be mistaken about our ability to deal with issues that don't meet with our satisfaction.

J. Tyabji: I hope that when the minister has the opportunity, diseased fish in fish farms licensed by the provincial government will not meet with his satisfaction, and he will take very strong action at that time.

The minister received a copy of a letter in April, and I would like to read some of it into the record, because we're talking about very recent events. There's a company called Scanmar, which is one of the largest fish farm companies. This letter says:

"Last year Scanmar placed a new strain of furunculosis into Sutlej Channel, which I pleaded with you to keep clear. They placed two farms close together in another of your red zones, and the pathogens immediately began to spread. The B.C. Packers farm in Greenway Sound quickly caught the disease. The poor coho returning last year had a remarkably similar disease that even DFO can't tell us is definitely not the same strain. And now the chinook that usually over-winter have vanished and the steelhead in Wakeman Sound appear to be gone as well.

"DFO knows that placing diseased fish in the water for enhancement purposes is very dangerous to wild stocks and it is not allowed. Thousands of publicly owned enhancement fish have been destroyed in hatcheries, to protect wild stocks. Why, then, are the fish farmers allowed to put diseased fish in the water and grow them out on migration routes of weakened stocks that DFO is trying to enhance?"

And the letter goes on; it's quite long.

It strikes me that this is the third year in a row that I've brought this issue forward in estimates. Of course, this is the first year that the minister has had this in front of him. But in previous estimates we were only talking about potential problems in terms of the wild salmon stocks. This year we're talking about the realities -- they have declined. When I first saw the information brought to me, over two years ago, I didn't know anything about it and did some research into it. I found that, unfortunately, Ms. Morton has been right in her predictions.

She's the first one to say that she wishes she were wrong in terms of the effect of putting in this level of disease and this level of antibiotics.

The number of antibiotics being put into the farmed fish is, I think, an issue for the Minister of Health. Somewhere somebody should be tracking that antibiotic through the human biological system. The antibiotics sediment out below the pens. Steelhead are one of the fish that go under them, but you get prawns and other marine animals eating food with antibiotics in it and then being consumed by humans. In addition, the farmed fish are consuming food full of antibiotics. If we want to be extremely selfish about how we perceive this and look only at our own interests, I'm not sure how that is impacting us as human organisms. Even if

[ Page 11034 ]

all the wild stocks would disappear and we would say that doesn't matter because we've got farmed fish, I'm not sure that's the kind of option we want in terms of our fish consumption needs.

[4:45]

I want to hear from the minister some indication of where he would like to go with the marine environment and whether or not we're going to have something in place. He says there are cancellation provisions for licences. But recognizing that once these estimates are over we can't revisit this until next year, and having seen this myself last year and the year before.... Of course, this is six months after the minister's meeting with Ms. Morton, and we're still in the process of analyzing the information in front of us.

Is there anything encouraging in terms of the level of monitoring and the action that will be taken by the government in licensing the fish farms with regard to preserving some of the wild stocks in the marine environment?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be lying if I said I didn't share your concern; I do. I worry about this problem; there's no two ways about that. But it's a problem that requires work with major industry, major environmental groups and significant environmental concerns, and it is work that requires activity within three different ministries. That doesn't make it expeditious when you have that many parties involved.

I have these concerns, and I would be less than forthright if I said a solution is imminent; it's not. Some work has to occur between my ministry and others. One of the frustrations that ministers have is that something that you think should take about two weeks to resolve tends to take about two months or longer. Having experienced that, I cannot give you a conclusive answer that would give you the appropriate comfort to know that an answer will be ready by the fall, for example. It may be; it may not be. But I'm not prepared to pin myself down to that.

I know that a lot of work needs to be done through staff on an issue that requires some scientific information and analysis, better environmental information, some response from the industry and response from some other ministries. That takes a while.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate that an issue of this magnitude requires a lot of caution. In that respect I agree with the minister, if his intentions are as he has stated, that we should get action at some point that would be in the best interests of people who would like to safeguard the environment. I will leave that aspect of it and know that now that it's in his domain -- and he has had it since November -- he has expressed an intention to deal with it. If it is not dealt with -- and this minister obviously recognizes his direct

responsibility on this issue in terms of safeguarding the wild stocks -- I would hope that he understands the magnitude of importance and that this cannot be taken lightly. Once the reviews are in, there should be very strong justification for any action taken or not taken. At that point he will be directly accountable for it.

I want to move to a related issue that does not have to do with diseased fish, but has to do with the issue of the seal scarers. The minister has some familiarity with the seal scarers used to deter the seals in the area from tearing at the nets, which has a double-barrelled effect. Obviously there is a cost to the industry when the seals attack the nets and the fish get out. In addition to the fish getting out, when these are diseased fish it allows for easier transmission of the disease and larger problems in terms of the environment. What is the minister's position on the seal scarers?

Is that also the subject of the review? If so, what are the guidelines of the review for the seal scarers, and is that taking into account related research on the impact of this level of sound carrying in a marine environment?

Hon. M. Sihota: I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is carrying on a study with regard to seal scarers on an international basis, and they don't intend to allow for seal scarers until that work is done.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister clarify that? Is he saying that they won't allow for seal scarers? Seal scarers are currently in use in the Broughton Archipelago.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a good point. I should have been a little clearer. They're not allowing for wide use of the seal scarers until that work is completed. It's not as if they banned them; they're just not allowing for wide use of them.